During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

Insolvent companies with under-funded employee pension plans that want to borrow money to keep operating and ultimately return to profitability may find it tougher to find new financing as a result of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision.

The Court ruled on April 7 that Indalex Limited (and certain affiliated companies), the second largest aluminum extrusion company in North America, which administered two pension plans, one for employees and the other for executives, was obliged to pay its pension

Unremitted source deductions are subject to a deemed trust in favour of the Crown under Section 227 of the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”), Section 86 of theEmployment Insurance Act (the “EIA”) and Section 23 of the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”). Subsection 227(4) of the ITA creates the trust for income tax deductions and Subsection 227(4.1) creates a super-priority lien in favour of the Crown, in the amount of the trust, over all the debtor’s assets.

When a company winds up, begins restructuring proceedings or goes bankrupt, a debtor or creditor may be able to cancel out the amount payable to the other party by using the remedy of “set‐off”. Set‐off involves the cancelling of crossliabilities between two parties who owe each other money. It is a valuable tool that can increase a creditor’s percentage of recovery and decrease the debt burden of a debtor.

Types of Set‐off: Contractual, Legal or Equitable

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision in Re Indalex Limited 1. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dated February 18, 2010, and allowed the appeals of the United Steelworkers and a certain group of retired executives. The Court of Appeal ordered FTI Consulting Canada ULC (the Monitor) to pay from the reserve fund (the Reserve Fund) held by the Monitor from the sale of Indalex Limited, Indalex Holdings (B.C.) Ltd., 6326765 Canada Inc. and Novar Inc.

In Canada, as in the US, corporate debtors are permitted with court approval to obtain DIP financing on a super-priority basis. The Order typically provides protections as hard as a nutshell, including that pension claims cannot crack the shell of protection and are subordinated to the new DIP loan. A recent Canadian decision, however, held that certain pension claims could crack the nut wide open and should be paid ahead of a DIP loan. Re Indalex Limited, 2011 ONCA 265 (Apr. 7, 2011).

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the restructuring proceedings involving Indalex Limited (Indalex) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that is inconsistent with prior non-binding comments by the same court relating to the priority of certain pension claims. The decision has material implications for institutional financiers that lend against the inventory, accounts receivable or cash collateral of businesses with Ontario regulated defined benefit pension plans and for the access of those businesses to secured credit.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of pension deficits in the context of a restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). However, unlike past decisions, in Re Indalex the Court held that such deficits may have priority against monies advanced under interim debtor-in-possession ("DIP") financing agreements authorized by a CCAA judge. This apparent departure from the conventional understanding of the priority of pension deficit claims and related issues should raise concerns for lenders, employers, and plan administrators.

One of the duties of a trustee is to examine each claim presented by a potential creditor of the
bankrupt and to determine whether such a claim is valid. A trustee is entitled, under
subsection 135(2) of the BIA, to disallow any claim, priority or security that it finds unproven or
invalid. In the event that a creditor’s claim is disallowed by a trustee, that creditor is entitled to appeal that decision to the superior court in the province. A creditor has 30 days after the
receipt of the trustee’s reasons for disallowance to file an appeal, although an extension may be

Section 38 provides a mechanism by which a creditor can take the place of the trustee in any proceeding where the trustee refuses or fails to act. Essentially, the creditor stands in the place of the trustee and, if successful in the proceeding, is entitled to keep all proceeds, except those that exceed the total of the creditor’s claim and the creditor’s costs of the proceeding. Any surplus proceeds received by the creditor are the property of the bankrupt’s estate.